We Hear You: Jack Phillips’ Fight at the Supreme Court ‘Is a Fight for All of Us’

Ken McIntyre

3 months ago

Jack Phillips, behind the counter at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, chats with Kristen Waggoner, the attorney who will represent him before the Supreme Court.
(Photo: The Daily Signal)

Editor’s note: With the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop going before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, we thought we’d highlight some of the responses The Daily Signal has received, including to the latest video profile on the story produced by Kelsey Harkness, Lauren Evans, and Michael Goodwin. Be sure to write us at letters@dailysignal.com.—Ken McIntyre

Once, prior to the Colorado Court of Appeals decision, I mailed Jack a card encouraging his efforts and along with a small check to help with his legal costs. He actually mailed back to me a handwritten thank-you card with several encouraging sentiments.

I know, since I’m a thank-you card writer myself, that the card took Jack several minutes of his time to write, address, and mail. Given his obvious busyness, that really impressed me.

I hope that Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Supreme Court case goes well. I really believe that his fight is a fight for all of us who seek to live out the Christian faith as we are told to do, according to the scriptures.

Thank you for highlighting Jack Phillips’ story. For me, it will be a reminder to pray for him during the next few days.—David Hughes

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner, Jack Phillips, has the right to do business with whom he wants. It is rather hypocritical of two men in a same-sex relationship—who demand the right to their lifestyle and beliefs—to adamantly impose their views on Mr. Phillips.

That couple should have found another business to make a custom cake for their wedding, and left this man alone.—Leila Martin

***

Should a gay couple be compelled to cater an anti-gay luncheon at a local church? Freedom of association cuts both ways. This case is about protecting everyone’s right to it.

No one should be compelled to serve another. When one is denied service, he is free to take his business elsewhere, open up a competing business, protest, or boycott. Period.—Pete Conde

***

Thank you for Kelsey Harkness’ masterful video piece on Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, surely one of your best. May the Holy Spirit go with them to the Supreme Court and beyond.—John Sowder

It’s a simple thing: If I own the company, I decide who my customers are. When did we lose such a freedom? It’s so basic there’s no need to mention the First Amendment. When we can’t choose our customers, we’ve lost freedom at the most elemental level.—Chip Henry

***

The same-sex couple in Colorado easily could have purchased a cake elsewhere than from Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, but seemingly wanted to share with the world a hatred for this man’s difference of opinion.

Pray that this stronghold is defeated in the Supreme Court, because we deal not with flesh and blood, but powers and principalities.

We also are seeing society’s great cowardice in its unwillingness to take a traditional moral stance.—Linda Berch

***

Thank you, Jack Phillips, for sharing your story with The Daily Signal. I really think God’s hand chose you to work out this little problem. God is in control, and though you may not win the Supreme Court case, God has a plan.—Nancy Barnes

***

Win or lose his case in the Supreme Court, Jack Phillips will have won because he is right in the eyes of God. Although needed, governments are not always right or just. This is a case in point. Thank you, Mr. Phillips, for letting God work through you.—Lee McLaughlin

***

The case in which the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop must defend their rights is yet another sign that this once great nation is gravely ill. When man’s law takes precedence over God’s law, there can be only one outcome.

Opposing judges and lawyers are quite willing to throw God’s law under the bus, but what will they do when they stand in final judgment before the eternal judge? You can bet they will want to plea-bargain, which will not be possible. So sad.—Spencer Downs

Those at Masterpiece Cakeshop, I am praying for you. Stand firm in your beliefs and God will see you through this storm.—Gail Hawke

***

Sorry, people, this is a left-wing strategy to force businesses to follow the left’s belief system, no matter one’s view.

The couple who sued Jack Phillips under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law had every right to look for a gay baker to make their wedding cake. But no, they chose Jack Phillips as an example of the couple’s doctrine and to punish this man’s business.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will see through the couple’s motivations and consider the lower court’s decision an injustice.—Louis Bontya ll

***

Who would have thought that there would be such hatred, persecution, and discrimination against a lovely guy like this, just because he has the moral integrity and strength of character to stand up for his Christian beliefs? But Jesus said it would happen in the last days, so I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised.—Barbara Holland

***

What an example Jack Phillips and his daughter are, especially when our pathetic society is screaming wrong. One day, all will see just what an injustice this case has been. But until then, we will suffer in this world of pain, injustice, and sin.—Patty Schmitz

What’s at Stake in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

Dear Daily Signal: Good commentary by Monica Burke outlining why Masterpiece Cakeshop must be allowed to choose to decline to serve what it considers, as do Christianity and every other major religion of the world teaches, an immoral event (“If a Christian Baker’s Rights Are Violated, We All Lose”).

We as free citizens must be allowed to follow our conscience in such matters. That does not mean, however, that every “religion” under the sun is legitimate.

Freedom of religion should not be interpreted to grant Satan worshipers or death-cult worshipers or other such destructive influences equal standing. The Supreme Court must get this one right.—Randy and Peggy Malcolm

***

Will this baker be refusing to make wedding cakes for couples embarking on their second marriage? What if their first marriage ended due to adultery?

Picking and choosing which “sin” to discriminate against seems very unchristian to me. As well as very difficult to justify.—C.A. Summers

***

Nobody is forcing him to bake cakes for people. What they are requiring, however, is that if he holds himself out to the public as a cake baker, he cannot refuse to bake cakes for people just because he chooses not to approve of their lifestyle. If he doesn’t like it, he should stop baking cakes.—Adam Hodkinv

I have said this many times: The legal argument is all wrong. The man is an artist. If you want a cake, go to Costco, if you want art, go commission it from a guy like him. We do not force artists to make art against their will. The same goes for other artists, like photographers, planners, or decorators. What they do is very subjective and unique to them.—Ron Stapley

Yes, baking a decorative cake is “expression.” The very act of refusing to bake the cake is also expression. Plus, one should not need the “excuse” of expression to be able to practice basic liberty and oppose tyranny.—Jerome Waldemar

***

The choice to enter into a gay union somewhat like a marriage and the choice to enter, or not, into an artistic endeavor such as creating and baking a cake in support of that union are both in and of themselves protected by the First Amendment.

However, a gay union is still not a marriage and is not addressed in any portion of the Constitution. And refusing to support it being termed a marriage in any way with cakes or otherwise, based on religious grounds, remains a First Amendment guarantee.—Steve Fowler

***

This is in no way a violation of First Amendment rights at all. It’s not about the cake, it’s about law. While you have the right to believe, you do not have the right to subject others to your belief, period, and the law cannot consider your beliefs. The Constitution does not consider anyone’s actual beliefs. If so we would have chaos in the streets.

We would have people beating women and stealing and murdering and getting by with it for simply saying, “It is my belief.” That’s the problem here. Discrimination is illegal. The law cannot and will not consider the existence of a God or any actual beliefs.—Jerry Kopp

***

After prevailing at the Supreme Court, Mr. Phillips should change the verbiage on the sign in his place of business that reads “gluten free” to “government free.”—Tom Subler

***

Edible art. Jack Phillips’ cakes are spectacular. The National Endowment for the Arts gave $50,000 to a girl who covered herself in chocolate syrup and bean sprouts. Jack Phillips gets nothing but oppression.—Mary De Voe